Arizona should reference this flaw in the DOJ argument: Under the low-income, Lifeline discounted phone service program, the FCC authorized applicants to self-certify their eligibility for the program under penalty of perjury. No longer! In the Lifeline Reform order released February, 2012, the FCC, citing fraud and abuse in self-certification, now requires all applicants to provide documented proof of eligibility. So there is a need to document eligibility in order to get discounted phone service but, heck, it’s not necessary to do so in order to safeguard the integrity of our electoral system?

The fence is an unnecessary waste of money. It is nothing but a symbol and will not stop people intent on crossing. Eventually, it will become a symbol the left points to and ridicules as the right’s folly and they will be correct.

One thing that MUST be tackled for any immigration enforcement program to work is changing Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil regardless of the immigration status of the birth parents.

Ratified in 1868 following the War Between the States, the 14th Amendment reversed the 1857 Supreme Court Decision in Scott V Sandford (Dred Scott Decision) that people of African descent, brought to the U.S. and held as slaves (and their descendants) are not protected under the Constitution and could never be citizens. There was a genuine fear after the abolishment of slavery that blacks would be deported as non-citizens. It was a unique requirement for a unique time in our history but it is now the major stumbling block to modern immigration enforcement.

How many realize that most of the children of illegal parents residing in this country were born on U.S. soil after their parents’ arrival? Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, that makes those children bona fide U.S. citizens, entitled to the same rights and privileges as every citizen. They cannot be deported without due process of law no more than you can. Do I like this? NO, but it is a fact and, if we insist that immigration laws be enforced, we must be consistent and respect the 14th Amendment. Until it is changed, we are stuck with complying by it.

What are the consequences of abiding by the 14th Amendment? Although it is legal to deport those who are not citizens, it is impractical and inhumane to do so when their children are legally U.S. citizens. The children cannot be deported without due process and for cause. That their parents are here illegally is not sufficient under the law. So, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On the surface it sounds like Governor Perry authorized taxpayer money to be spent on the public education of illegal aliens. In the vast majority of cases that isn’t so. Most of the children being educated are likely U.S. citizens entitled to the same rights and privileges as every other American child. It is their parents who are non-citizens. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that there are 363,000 children born in the U.S. each year to illegal immigrant parents. Think about it. That is a city population larger than that for Charleston, SC created every single year by citizen babies born to the parents of illegal immigrants. The most pressing need is for changing the 14th amendment to eliminate this loophole.

URL to Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/homepagenew

Yes, I realize that the article is about her former church in Wasilla versus the one she currently attends. The point is the left’s efforts to tie Sarah Palin’s political beliefs to her church. More and more, the radical left is attacking what they consider the icon of the conservative political philosophy - the Christian Church. Even more reason for someone filled with radical partisan hate to attack the church she attends now and consider it an attack on her by association.

By the way, for those who actually read the comments, I said there was no proof of anything. I simply find a possible association interesting.

There is no proof that it is but I wouldn't put anything past the left in their pursuit of victory in the culture war. Attacks on worship services, led by Gay/Lesbian groups, has become bolder and more vicious of late.

Good questions and I don’t have all the answers nor will I prentend that I do.

The argument you are making is one made by many in the scientific field. It is a statement of faith.

My faith is in an eternal creator, who in ways that we simply cannot comprehend, brought into existence the physical universe and everything in it. The other is faith that matter/energy is eternal with no beginning and no end. That flies in the face of everything I’ve observed about matter/energy but I admit I don’t understand everything.

Evolution arguments are but a distraction from the primary issue that science struggles to resolve. Before the “big bang” what? Discussions about origin proceed from the moment the universe began expanding and coveniently ignore the cause/effect explanation for the presence of both matter and energy from which expansion began. Quantum physics string theory attempts to fill those voids in scientific explanation but again runs into the chicken and egg argument.

Here is a link to a very lengthy article from Discovery Magazine titled “Before the Big Bang”. As you can see, the scientific community is as far as east is from west in resolving the questions of origin that continue to elude humanity.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover

But even parallel universes and cosmic strings must have an origin. It is a paradox for mankind.

I’m reminded of the words found in Hebrews 11:3
“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

I can only speak for myself but while others argue over meaningless fossil evidence and carbon dating to prove or refute the Bible, I look to the heavens and see the evidence of my Creator’s hand in it all.

From what I’ve studied, Constantine did NOT “fobid” observance of the sabbath. He merely said that workshops and other activities be closed on Sunday.

From the very beginning, Christians NEVER worshipped the Lord on Saturday. That should not be in dispute. They came together on the Lord’s Day (first day of the week) but also kept the Jewish Sabath. One can cast dispersions on ANY DAY by associating it with what pagans happen to do on that day but it is probably not coincidental that the Lord specifically chose the first day of the week for the ressurection and to baptize the church with the Holy Spirit.

All that said. I think believers who place greater emphasis on their particular day of worship moreso than the creator of it are on very dangerous turf. Has it become a “law unto itself” and does it resemble the attitude for which Jesus chastized the scribes and pharisees? EVERY DAY is a day when believers should study the word, pray, meditate on the things of God and, most importantly, live in accordance with it. Neither are we limited on the assembling of ourselves together on any particular day.

Whether Saturday or Sunday is recognized as the sabbath is, in my opinion, of little consequence. The day a believer chooses to assemble themselves together will NOT be the determining factor for eternity. What matters for Christians, is Christ’s attonement and the salvation available through Him. Anything else is merely religion that will be separated with the chaff. All those who are saved by Him will be together with Him and the Bible says the saints will praise God continually (not just at some time reserved for it).

Saturday is indeed the Biblical Sabbath but not the traditional sabbath for Christians.

Early Christians observed Saturday as the day of rest and the first day of the week as “The Lord’s Day” when they gathered and worshipped. They observed both because the early Christians were predominantly Jewish by birth and still upheld Jewish practices. The first day of the week was the Lord’s Day because Jesus arose on Sunday, first appeared again to the disciples who had gathered on Sunday, and was the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon the church in power (Acts 2).

The early church continued to observe Saturday as a day of rest and Sunday as a day of worship for the first few centuries of church history. On March 7, 321, the emperor Constantine issued a decree that made Sunday the day of rest in the Eastern Roman Empire. In Cannon 29, the Roman church in the Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 364) stated that although Christians should respect Saturday, the Lord’s Day (Sunday) should be especially honored and that no work should be done on the day of Christian worship. Pope Gregory (AD 590-604) demanded that all secular activities should cease on Sunday so that the people could devote their time to prayer. The overwhelming majority of Christian churches have observed Sunday as the day of rest and worship since then, both Catholic and Protestant.

Students of the Bible know that God judges the heart. If Christians obey His command to observe a day of rest in faith and obedience, especially honoring the Son who rose to give them new life on that day, I think God will be pleased. Likewise, I think He will be pleased with those who do so in faith and obedience on Saturday. It is the act of faith and the attitude (the heart) that matters. Observing NEITHER reveals one’s faith and attitude (heart) toward God as well. Nonbelievers should not be forced to observe those things that apply only to believers. Believers should not need a secular law to force them to obey God.

The issue is the surface fleet, not subs.

Apparently, Fred is the one with the facts in his corner. See the article posted above. I believe I could support Fred for prez.

I brought this approach up last week in a thread here about global warming. Today, I received an invitation by email to attend a conference on geological carbon sequestration. Hold on to your pocketbook. If this comes to fruition, the implementation and operational costs will be passed on to utility ratepayers. The anti-capitalists, however, will not be pleased. They want to ride the global warming bandwagon in order to reduce industrial output. Secondly, the CO2 can be liquified, and injected into oil reservoirs where it acts as a solvent for extraction of the nearly two-thirds of petroleum reserves trapped in the underlying rock formations. Domestic oil supplies could increase substantially. Greenies will hate that.

I don't understand the point in this rant.

Rationing is only appropriate when there is not enough meteriel (note that's a logistics term) to support both the war effort and domestic requirements. What point is there in rationing when it's unnecessary? All that would do is hurt the economy and the people who depend on it.

With regard to the size of homes, do people in other countries live in smaller dwellings because they are trying to conserve? Could it be because of limited space and economies that are not as competitive as ours due to socialist government policies?

Americans work longer and harder than our counterparts in Europe. We take fewer vacations and are far more productive. We have every right, therefore, to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Should we be compelled to scale down our standard of living for those who do not work as hard? Is the objective so that the Europeans will not feel as bad about their lack of productivity and/or so that Americans can rid themselves of guilt for being the better competitor? Sorry, but I have no guilty feelings. Instead of chastizing his countrymen about gluttony perhaps he should consider encouraging the Europeans to examine why they are unable or unwilling to meet the standard we have established.

Reeses, I'll give a good example of that to which you are eluding. Most people don't realize that the oil we recover through drilling consitutes only roughly one-third of the oil available in a field. The remaining oil is "stranded", that is trapped in rock.

Liquified CO2 acts as a solvent. It has proven effective in removing the stranded oil so that it too can be recovered. Here is a link to a page that discusses the technology:

Stranded Oil Recovery and American Energy Independence

Additionally, since CO2 is emitted from the oceans and from the soil itself, it can also be captured and sequestered geologically remaining trapped underground for many years. It has already been tested and proven effective in Canada. Here is a link to the concept:

CO2 Injection and Carbon Sequestration

Now I'm not agreeing that CO2 emissions are what is causing the increased temperatures but the Gore types are saying that's exclusively what is causing it. If engineers showed how the CO2 could be used to produce more oil for energy independence and at the same reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, they'd go bonkers. That's because a lot of the hype is about a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. Instead, there are many in the movement who are riding the global warming coattail for reasons of anti-capitalism and world income redistribution through that absurd carbon credits scheme.

Data indicates that the planet definitely is warming at the moment. That concession should be the first statement used to counter the AL Gore crowd for it disarms their "conservatives are in denial" message. Then one can get to the real meat of the counter argument which is that there are likely a myriad of reasons for the change but the Gore crowd has simplistically latched on to just one: greenhouse gas levels.

If you've followed this issue long enough, you know about the known factors affecting global temperature: greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar radiation intensity, and changes in cosmic radiation. Of those factors, two (greenhouse gases and cosmic radiation) are influenced heavily by changes in solar radiation. Aerosols, on the other hand, serve to counter the effects of solar radiation, which is a primary driver in cloud formation.

Human activity contributes a very tiny part of the factors under our control (greenhouse gases and aerosols) and, interestingly, efforts to reduce human induced CO2 for purposes of lowering the earth's greenhouse gas concentrations also reduces the factor that balances increased temperature, namely aerosols. Human contributions to aerosol concentrations are likewise very minute with volcanic activity being the overwhelming reason for change. Cosmic radiation is believed to be a major driver in cloud formation, which block sunlight to the surface. Solar winds from increased sunspot activity tend to divert cosmic radiation away from the planet.

It appears we are now in a period of increased solar activity combined with decreased aerosol concentrations. Climatic histograms show that the earth has experienced this phenomenon and the opposite (decreased solar radiation combined with increased aerosols) many times over the eons but has always rebounded to find balance.

The point is that probably 99.99% of the causation for increased global temperature is outside our control. Gore and his supporters, for a variety of political and economic reasons however, wants to convince society to divert a large portion of our economic resources toward chasing an apparition. I fully understand Gore's motive. As founder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management LLP, Gore and his buddies stand to make a fortune based on the global warming hype.

I am from Alabama and I can tell you that this is not a case of Alabamians conciously choosing to retain racial segregation statutes. Most Alabama voters simply had no idea what they were voting for or against when it comes to the amendments. In fact, if the admenment vote was broken down by race, you'd find that a large number of blacks voted no to the amendment.

Alabama has an archaic constitution that requires ALL voters statewide to vote on even local referendums. This particular amendment was mixed in with those requiring, for example, the mandatory annexation of areas around certain cities or the salary of a probate judge for one particular county.

It was obviously written by an attorney in "legalese" and not everyday language. The amendments were NOT explained by politicians or the media prior to the election and most, including me, simply went to the polls, saw them for the first time, and tried to decipher them before casting their vote. One other problem, there was a large voter turn out and my polling place ran out of sample ballots long before noon. Fortunately, I was able to recover one from the trash and, after several reads, was able to discern what we were actually being asked to vote for or against.

Yes, we wear the colors in that manner to depict them as they would be if attached to a standard and being carried by the soldier into battle. As the unit advances, which way would the colors appear to be streaming to someone observing the battle? The answer is that the blue background containing the stars would be facing to the soldier's front.

Being designated as the colors bearer has traditionally been a very high military honor. The colors are worn on the uniform to depict that noble and time-honored privilege. The flag is not "backward" unless one wants to depict the colors heading away from soldiers as they advance forward into battle.

I'm tired of hearing about this weak, old man's propoganda films. Why not take the offensive and prepare a FREEPER taped message of our own for delivery to Al Jazeera telling him and his followers (complete with Arabic subtitles) that they are dead men walking and will be buried in pig squalor?

What's wrong with a little counter propoganda?

A bit irritated at the author's description of my South as "economically backward" (the majority of the people I know here are living pretty well), I decided to do a little "Googling". My how they can see the splinter in someone else's eye but ignore the beam in their own.

Link to BBC Article on UK Poverty

UK 'divided by regional poverty'

BBC News 9 MARCH 2004

The UK suffers from the second worst levels of regional poverty in the world, according to a report.

Figures released by the Child Poverty Action Group indicate only Mexico is worse than Britain in terms of regional inequality.

The report, Poverty: The Facts, says Wales is poorer than Great Britain as a whole.

It also says north-east England has an average annual income of almost £4,000 less than the rest of UK.

Co-author Doctor Paul Dornan said: "Poverty spreads across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

"The fact that of all industrial nations we are ranked as second to Mexico in terms of regional inequality is shocking."

The authors found every country and region has pockets of poverty.

London has an average income of £14,000 more than Scotland, while 32% of the worst areas of unemployment are in Glasgow, according to the report.

The figures also show one out of every three people living in inner London suffer from income poverty compared with one out of every five on the outskirts of the capital.

Child poverty is on the decline, the reports says.

But the authors say ethnic minority groups continue to experience high levels of poverty.

Figures show people from ethnic minority groups complete more job applications than white job seekers but fail to get as many interviews.

The unemployment rate for black graduates is also seven times higher than their white counterparts with the same qualifications, the report says.

In other areas, women are said to have lower rates of pay over their lifetime, and their work patterns are often interrupted due to caring for others.

Dear Ann: Time for a reality check, a dose of truth serum, rather than regurgitating the democrat spin, which is pure lies and propoganda.

Before proceding, I'd like to ask you "between the President and the Kerrys, who are the bigger fat cats and doing better financially"? John Kerry recently sold one of his homes in Italy for $7.8 million but don't fret, he has four more currently currenlty valued at over $25 million.

Kerry and wife embrace opulence

The Kerrys probably have more holdings (and I have no problem with people acquiring wealth) but we don't know because he refuses to release Teresa's tax returns. I wonder why they file separately and what he is trying to hide, honey? Compare that to the Bush ranch in Crawford, TX. President Bush released his tax records...they file jointly.

Oh, and by the way...the Dem's poster boy - William Jefferson Clinton - was a major proponent of government outsourcing when he was in power. Did we temporarily forget that? Now...time for the reality check:

The Truth about Outsourcing
August 6, 2004
Heritage Foundation
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
The Truth About Outsourcing

First, the bad news: Some of us will lose a job this year. It’s inevitable. After all, in the last 10 years, the country has lost more than 7 million jobs each quarter on average.

But now the good news: That won’t matter to most, because there are actually more jobs available than ever before. Almost everyone who loses a job can get another one, often at a higher salary.

The federal government’s household survey shows more than 139 million Americans are working today -- the highest number ever recorded. Plus, the unemployment rate is holding steady at a relatively low 5.5 percent, even as our population increases.

All this matters because it’s election season, and over the next three months we’re going to be hearing a lot about the dangers of “outsourcing,” the process by which American jobs are supposedly being sent to other nations --countries that refuse to compete with us on a “level playing field.”

The reality, of course, is that the playing field is tipped our way. The United States has the best educated, most productive, most adaptive workforce in the world. Because of that, and our support of free trade, “outsourcing” is actually far overshadowed by something we hear much less about, “insourcing.” That’s the process by which foreign firms hire workers here, including Honda workers in Ohio and BMW employees in South Carolina.

A recent study by the Organization for International Investment found that there are 6.4 million jobs in the U.S. in which the employer is a foreign company. The study also showed insourced jobs are growing at an annual rate of 5.5 percent, while manufacturing outsourced jobs grew at an annual rate of only 1.5 percent. More companies are moving jobs here than are shipping them elsewhere.

And even when it does happen, outsourcing isn’t necessarily a dead end. A separate study by the firm Global Insight showed that the economic activity that followed the outsourcing of some information technology jobs led to the net creation of more than 90,000 net new jobs in 2003. It’s expected to create 317,000 net new jobs by 2008.

Of course, even with the job gains, we’ll probably still experience a loss of manufacturing jobs. For example, U.S. manufacturing employment declined by 11 percent between 1995 and 2002. However, America wasn’t alone.

A study by Alliance Capital Management found that rising productivity is driving down manufacturing employment worldwide. The typical country lost 11 percent of its factory jobs, and some countries suffered even more than we did. China, which some accuse of stealing our manufacturing jobs, actually lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs over the same period.

The international economy is becoming more productive and more innovative, which means all of us are paying less for such things as computers, cell phones and coffee. And, even though we’ve lost jobs, our manufacturing sector is more efficient than ever. Manufacturing output actually increased by 38 percent over the last 10 years.

Political leaders from both sides of the aisle recognize the benefits of this process.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., recently noted that insourced jobs are often higher paying than those that are outsourced, and he pointed out that every state enjoys the benefits of insourcing. For example, political swing states Michigan and Ohio have 244,200 and 242,200 insourced jobs, respectively.

Meanwhile, as far back as 1997, the Clinton administration advocated outsourcing some government jobs as a way to increase efficiency, cut costs and save tax dollars.

Politicians love to highlight individual examples to prove their case, so we’re sure to hear plenty of anecdotes this summer about workers who’ve lost their jobs because of outsourcing.

But in an economy of our size, it’s important to focus on the big picture. The numbers prove our economy is growing and creating good jobs for an ever-increasing population. The good news outweighs the bad -- by far.

Ed Feulner is the president of The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org), a Washington-based public policy research institute.

Now there's an ASS just "beggin for a good whoopin" !